Madam, - I write in response to Prof Peter Singer's article on animals and ethics (May 23rd). It is always a pleasure to take issue with a fellow philosopher in the spirit of dialectics.
Singer starts by saying that we need to overcome our prejudices towards animals (he calls them "non-human animals") just as we overcame prejudices (have we?) towards minorities. He knows there are differences between the two but says that they don't justify the way we think of and treat animals.
Well, why not? I am an animal lover and I would never encourage unnecessary cruelty towards them. That said, though, there are huge differences between animals and humans and it's not just a case of "being able to reason better", as Singer suggests. We have spiritual souls; animals do not. That's the difference, Prof Singer. And yes, I would prefer that animals were experimented upon if it were to save one human life.
Singer states that evolutionary theory "debunks the idea that God gave humans dominion over the other (my italics) animals". Please Prof Singer. Evolutionary theory has not even been proved. Prof Singer needs to read not only Genesis but also Michael Denton's book on Darwin.
But even more farcical is the notion - one that Singer seems to endorse - that chimpanzees should be included in the genus "homo", hitherto reserved for humans. Well, when I accompany my nephew and nieces to Dublin Zoo and look in on the chimpanzees am I hallucinating when I fail to notice their humanity?
I side with the fox-hunter philosopher Roger Scruton rather than with the fluffy, vegetarian, moustached, a bit-long-in-the-tooth hippie Prof Singer and his morally bankrupt ethics of utilitarianism. - Yours, etc.,
Dr STEPHEN J. COSTELLO,
Dartmouth Road,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.